Ok, so we all admit here that we are talking about a problem which does not exist in reality? Which is cool, but it's important we all understand this.

Eulogy, if I can make a suggestion which goes just beyond this argument, you would do well to realize that for virtually any issue, there are more than two binarily-opposed positions which can be held.

um.. it is a problem. why do you think telecoms were pouring millions into lobbyists and lawsuits. to keep the status quo?

have you guys noticed that dr ron swanson here consistently struggles with understanding current events?

Net Neutrality: the mere term is doublespeak dressed as a psy-op. funneh how the same crowd wooed by "Yes We Can" and Obamacare fall in line on this one, without reading what the 300+ page document reveals.


suckers...

we need to make a macro for him where he can argue for one side, another where he'll concede said side is wrong, the next where he somehow manages to extrapolate on how BOTH SIDES are wrong and we're idiots for taking a side and a final one where he takes his ball and goes home

i know being condescending is like your jam

But fuck off

Let me reiterate.

Sorry for telling you to fuck off. I'm trying to rein in my netphoria anger but sometimes it still spills out.

I think you're very wrong and that you're incapable of thinking in practical terms and that you bizarrely wear that flaw as a badge of honor

But I retract the "fuck off" part : /

>>implying runaway capitalist abuse isn't a problem
>>2015
>>still on Adam Smith's balls

We saw what they did to Netflix to get more money out of them and went holy shit we're next and that's why the gov made rules to prevent it

Any supporters of the current legislation care to explain specifically why they do? Kinda tough to went it hasn't been released yet. They're likely still writing it and made it public to see the blowback from those who know the score and how to circumvent the coming FCC takeover of the internet.

The educated douchebags who thought they were being so clever spelling out their plans allow the FCC on the fly to cover those loopholes with the legislation. IOW, even the truthers got played by this.

It's all a big psy-op to eventually shut down Truther sites because in the last decade in particular, the powers that be have had the damdest time with their false flags getting exposed.

We need to shut those "truther" sites down because they're spreading dangerous misinformation and propagating irrational mythical thinking. In fact, we need to round the people up that run these sites and question them... maybe impose some jail time or hefty fines when they misbehave.

Alternative media IS the problem. It's creating division and distracting people from the truth. Do you honestly believe the government lies about everything? We need to get rid of all news stations and replace them with one state run television station that we can tune into to get our news. This would help clear up any misunderstandings and stop tea party types from dragging our country down further with their racist conspiracy nut job "news" like Breitbart, Alex Jones, Michael Savage etc. We really need to clean up the internet, starting with message forums and social media.

i wonder if he knows what psy op means at this point

Who is suggesting that the ISPs wanted this regulation? Of course they don't want it and of course they imagine that they will be able to charge a premium to sites like netflix, youtube, etc. That doesn't equate to the doomsday slippery-slope abstraction that several people here are using to justify their position.

I'm not sure what is "impractical" about arguing about the situation as it is *in reality* versus an imaginary world in which no one has internet access because it costs millions of dollars per user (not sure why barriers to internet access would be good for ISPs, but whatever...) and corporations censor half the content...

Are you familiar with cable television companies

And can you possibly present your opinions without being a condescending dick

Academics are pretty universally reviled for a reason. Congratulations on contributing to that.

I think we all know Omega's answer to this question.

the isps suggested this

stick to pie in the sky tgeoreticals, colin

Yeah those posts are nuts

I think she was being sarcastic

I admit that years of being an academic have sucked out all the patience I used to have for the most repetitive/formulaic parts of arguments. No doubt this comes across as condescending. I'm afraid that you get trained to argue this way, probably because vitriolic arguments are about the only thing that make academic conferences worth attending.

Ok, then. I guess I should pick the (stupid) slippery-slope counter-argument that fits the binary discourse that everyone wants to have:

net neutrality is good bad because the corporations government will make it cost more and censor it.

I realize it's *crazy*, but I don't like either the government or the corporations having power...

professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is would you say its time for our readers to crack each others heads open and feast on the goo inside?

EVERYTIME YOU SAY THIS IT PROVES YOURE NOT FUCKING GETTING IT

jesus fuck man

have you read anything about this or are you just assuming you know all about it?